There's obviously bad apples in any bunch. I think that depending on 2 things: how stretched thin a department's resources are & how difficult/dangerous the citizenry are to interact with goes a long way toward explaining why some forces have a lot of a**holes employed & some don't.

BNW was a lame propoganda piece with an ill-conceived female character that borrowed heavily from Wells' "The Time Machine".

I despise suffering more than I hate or love anything, so I would rather live in the fictional BNW society despite the inanity of it than any society in world history. You don't have to fear death, you just get taken off in a coffin without you or anyone knowing it after your 60 years or whatever are up. If there's ever a hint of any trouble soma gets sprayed around and everyone gets laid. It's a kind dictatorship, not like the fascists who rule our planet today.

Not sure if the person who mentioned Ghost was being serious or not. Does everything with satanic themes have to have growly vocals and esoteric song structures? I mean sure, the lead singer kind of sounds like a Euro-fag yet the songwriting is perfectly fine and has been favorably compared to bands like Blue Oyster Cult, hardly worthy of scorn. Are they even pop culture enough like where MTV would play them? I think people sometimes confuse stuff they don't like with pop culture. Like Wolves of the Throne Room is mainstream garbage....Really? I could probably ask everyone I went to high school with and count on one hand the number of people who ever even heard of them.

Let's say you were working for a dictator who had entrusted you with vetting everyone like in interviews, seeing if they should be allowed to live to be productive in society or be cast off/killed/whatever. Let's say you got to Hawking but you didn't recognize him. If you are true to Anus'ian philosophy and intellectually honest you would recommend him to be cast off and unworthy of life without a second thought, right? Probably ditto for any adult who needs to wear Depends.

I was skimming through that book written about the Simpsons and philosophy, not a book I would recommend but a family member had it so I was just checking it out for the hell of it. In this chapter about morality it goes off on this tangent-see below- that really hit home in a way I'd never read before ever since I started thinking about the limitations of language.

{So why did we ever believe there was something beyond what we experience, beyond "this" world, why did we ever think there was a distinction to be made between appearance and reality? One of the main reasons, Nietzsche says, is because of the structure of language. We see actions, deeds, being performed (that is, we experience phenomena in the chaotic world around us), and the only way we can make sense of these actions or phenomena, to grasp them, is to project behind them, by means of language, some stable subject which causes them. ("I" run; "you" yell; "Nelson" punches.) Because thinking and language cannot represent a world in flux, it is necessary to speak as if there were stable things which have properties, and stable subjects which cause actions. This limitation of thought and language then gets projected into the world. We actually come to believe in unity, substance, identity, permanence (in other words, being). Nietzsche says:

the popular mind separates the lightning from its flash and takes the latter for an ACTION, for the operation of a subject called lightning...But there is no such substratum; there is no "being" behind doing, effecting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction added to the deed--the deed is everything. The popular mind in fact doubles the deed; when it sees the lightning flash, it is the deed of a deed: it posits the same event first as cause and then a second time as its effect.

We say, "lightning flashes," but are there really two things, the lightning AND the flash? No, of course not. But this seems to be the only way we're able to grasp and express things. We have to use a subject, "lightning," and a verb, "flashes," in order to express what we've experienced. But in so doing, we trick ourselves into believing that there's some stable thing behind the action which in fact causes it. That is, because we have the subject/predicate distinction built into our language, we come to believe that this adequately mirrors the structure of reality. But this is a mistake. We say, "Homer eats," "Homer drinks," when in reality there is nothing called "Homer" beyond the eating, drinking, and belching. There is no being behind the doing. Homer just is the sum of his actions, and no more.

This distinction between doer and deed petrified in our language is the beginning of the split between appearance and reality, Nietzsche tells us.....}

Well, this and other difficulties that come up that as a layperson I can't classify; I can't shake the feeling language is so unsatisfactory and a lot of that is not going to change; like I would maybe like to stop using language all together except for internal thoughts, I think about that a lot.

From what I've observed, what's behind much of children being abused by their parents is partially the parent(s) don't really want the child. Not in the truest sense.

Why?

They ended up having children because biological drives and in applicable cases, cultural expectation to do so, overrode all their other decision making factors.

On a scale of societal mayhem, the worst case scenario between an individual woman not giving in to these drives doesn't hold a candle to what can happen if she does.

If it took feminist movements to reshape how some women think and attain greater freedom to make more reasoned choices, that's actually pretty inspiring. To live in a same lifetime as some of these great thinkers.

People in societies in which their acts of procreation are coerced, people with certain cognitive defects, people without sufficient education to realize what procreation entails, victims of sexual violation impregnated without adequate resources. Whether it goes without revealing there it is: all these people can be excused as too ignorant and/or helpless to morally choose whether to procreate.

For the rest of us, what does it mean to choose to procreate? Why, to impose life on another person, clearly. Often social pressures or norms and biological yens take the forefront of people choosing this peculiar activity. At most morality is considered in conditional terms, waiting to be developmentally, financially, in relationship before the desired result inevitably is attempted.

Is it taboo to suggest the question of if procreation is immoral? I wouldn't know since the words have never slipped out of my mouth and really can't think of an example hearing it besides that old comedian who said something like, 'every so many seconds a woman is with child - someone should stop her' but I'm wondering if I'm misconstruing the intended meaning since what I think is being suggested is completely foreign. Maybe it's just another way of saying life sucks, human race sucks, oh well it's what we live in rather than anything to do with procreation.

I think it is immoral. Life entails excruciating suffering at some points, and if you are one of the few ones this is not true for, it's very likely your early death caused sorrow for your family or else you have a rare disability causing your nervous system not to feel properly, and the effects of your defects will be a burden on those who bring you up. How can there even be a question among us that even risking imposing life on another is immoral?

It's really no less silly to imply all higher functioning autistics are defective and useless than any claims that they are superior. I can see the confusion with all the misdiagnosing and lack of research, understanding. It's a spectrum once you really get out to observe. Just like with humanity, our diversity makes us strong. And please don't be so surprised that some of these alienated people would come to a nihilistic site, well I mistakenly thought it was nihilism at first, you know the defeated definition 99% of the world seems to use.

What is anus reality? Anus promises hope for us by striving for idealism, founded on first acceptance of "reality" and deriving values from it. Is this reality found in "religious" texts? Anus doesn't think so and I agree. How about scientific inquiry? That seems like it could be helpful. We may discard old conclusions if need be to find what best explains phenomena around us. Anus certainly seems in tune with some present day scientific findings (i.e. evolution). The question is why would anus be on the extreme fringes of scientific thought when it comes to race and breeding. I don't have evidence for this on hand as I stopped reading articles here many months ago. It's just obvious. To make a comparison, it reminds me of how the young earth creationist family I grew up in denies evolution and denies that earth is older than 7,000 years old, but otherwise they don't seem conflicted with science and in fact benefit greatly from science in their everyday lives.

Anus has gotten me no closer to embracing reality and finding my place within it than the misguided Christians I grew up with. Smart critical thinkers can see through propoganda.

To be honest anus also seems out of touch with technology. Ever hear of gene splicing?

"Coach (Tony) Dungy always says guys have to be ready to step up and step in, and we did that, but you hope we can get some of these guys back. You don't like seeing guys leave the game due to injuries," quarterback Peyton Manning said.

Harrison, an eight-time Pro Bowl receiver, left in the second quarter with a bruised left knee and did not return. Addai, who rushed for a season-high 136 yards and his team-high fifth touchdown of the season, went out early in the fourth quarter with a bruised shoulder.

Sanders, a Pro Bowl safety who was instrumental in the Colts' Super Bowl run last season, injured his ribs during the first half, and linebacker Morris had the most severe injury. The team's first-round pick in 2000 had surgery Tuesday to repair a tendon in his left knee and was placed on injured reserve, ending his season.

But uncertainty continued to swirl around three of the Colts' biggest names.

"No one's out, and if they can practice by Friday, it would be a plus, definitely," Dungy said. "You can sit and wait and hope that they'll come back, but I've never been one to do that. You have to move on."

If Addai can't play, the Colts will likely use a committee of Kenton Keith, Luke Lawton and Clifton Dawson. Keith has 23 carries for 134 yards, including 10 for 80 yards against the Broncos.

The Colts rushed for a season-high 226 yards against the Broncos, the first time this year they gained more yards on the ground than through the air.

Despite being decimated by injuries last week, the Colts proved a healthy Manning is enough to win.

Manning, who has started 148 consecutive games since his rookie year in 1998, led the Colts to six scores on their final eight possessions, finishing 20-of-27 for 193 yards and three touchdowns. The Super Bowl MVP and two-time league MVP has thrown for 1,066 yards, eight TDs and just one interception on the season.

Indianapolis tied a franchise record with its 11th straight home victory. The Colts have won the last four AFC South titles and again find themselves in a familiar position - leading the division.

The Buccaneers (3-1), meanwhile, went 4-12 last season, but have won their last three games to take an early lead in the NFC South.

Tampa Bay defeated Carolina 20-7 on Sunday, and like the Colts, suffered costly injuries to some of its top players.

The Bucs lost running back Carnell "Cadillac" Williams and left tackle Luke Petitgout for the year, as both will undergo season-ending knee surgery this week.

"Experience and production at those positions is something an offense relies on," Tampa Bay coach Jon Gruden said.

"To see a guy have a serious injury is hard to swallow, it's hard to take. But we've got a lot of resolve on the team. We can't look at this as a season-ending situation. The season's just beginning. We're excited about what we have left."

The Bucs will use of a combination of Michael Pittman and Earnest Graham to replace Williams, the 2005 NFL offensive rookie of the year and Tampa Bay's leading rusher the past two seasons. Pittman and Graham finished with 138 of Tampa Bay's season-high 189 rushing yards against the Panthers.

"Pittman helped us win a couple division championships here and Earnest Graham is clearly a capable runner and receiver," Gruden said. "We'll move on and do the best we can in the absence of these two players."

Tampa Bay has been led by its defense, which is allowing the fewest points (11.0 per game) and fifth-fewest yards (291. in the league. The Bucs are coming off their best defensive effort of the season, holding the Panthers to 236 yards and a meaningless touchdown with 23 seconds left.

The Bucs weren't nearly as good defensively in their last meeting with the Colts on Oct. 6, 2003, as Indianapolis trailed 28-7 in the fourth quarter before rallying to tie the score at 35 with 35 seconds left. The Colts went on to win 38-35 in overtime, with Manning finishing 34-of-47 for 386 yards with two touchdowns and one interception.